Can UGC really go bad?
There was a ReadWriteWeb post this morning from Sarah Perez about the potential for negative feedback in a blog 2.0 context. After watching a couple of startups self-destruct after getting critical write ups it's clear that even for web companies the changing structure of corporate communication has not universally sunk in.
The lines get blurry, but there are two broad categories of feedback which jump out: call them "trolls" and "critics". A good place to find some old fashioned trolling is in the comments section of most articles on TechCrunch; an especially feisty example during the Wired spat here. Does a reasonable reader believe Michael Arrington is a #(&$ #($&##@ ? Of course not... I like to think of crackpot trolls as a status symbol like paparazzi. Name calling and ad-hominem attacks (DH0/DH1 on the Paul Graham scale) can be safely ignored in almost all circumstances, and your readers will do the same. They hurt your brand in the same way someone littering a fast food bag hurts that company's brand. Given the opportunity you'd rather craft the message differently than seeing your logo in a ditch by the side of the road, but most customers will be minimally affected and any response by you would absolutely make it worse.
Negative write ups are the second best thing that can happen for your startup from a PR point of view - after positive ones. In this day and age there is such a thing as bad press but I'd argue only in the contexts of HR or accounting. An early adopter interested enough in your product to discuss why it doesn't fit their needs is bad only for your ego. First, it gets attention to your product, and second it's great constructive feedback. There is an embarrassment of riches in terms of product feedback available today, and I think we're just seeing the first glimmer of companies tapping into that in an organized way. Companies that are already doing so have the added benefits of being seen as progressive and responsive.
The lines get blurry, but there are two broad categories of feedback which jump out: call them "trolls" and "critics". A good place to find some old fashioned trolling is in the comments section of most articles on TechCrunch; an especially feisty example during the Wired spat here. Does a reasonable reader believe Michael Arrington is a #(&$ #($&##@ ? Of course not... I like to think of crackpot trolls as a status symbol like paparazzi. Name calling and ad-hominem attacks (DH0/DH1 on the Paul Graham scale) can be safely ignored in almost all circumstances, and your readers will do the same. They hurt your brand in the same way someone littering a fast food bag hurts that company's brand. Given the opportunity you'd rather craft the message differently than seeing your logo in a ditch by the side of the road, but most customers will be minimally affected and any response by you would absolutely make it worse.
Negative write ups are the second best thing that can happen for your startup from a PR point of view - after positive ones. In this day and age there is such a thing as bad press but I'd argue only in the contexts of HR or accounting. An early adopter interested enough in your product to discuss why it doesn't fit their needs is bad only for your ego. First, it gets attention to your product, and second it's great constructive feedback. There is an embarrassment of riches in terms of product feedback available today, and I think we're just seeing the first glimmer of companies tapping into that in an organized way. Companies that are already doing so have the added benefits of being seen as progressive and responsive.
posted by aseever at
9:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home